At yesterday's hearing over the fire at „Puls” in Kocani, construction expert Marijana Lazarevska testified. Her findings fit into a single sentence: every building intervention in the venue was carried out illegally - without design documentation, without professional supervision, and without approval from the competent institutions.

This is not a lapse in one document. This is a building that was altered over years without a single completed legal procedure.

From warehouse to hospitality venue - skipping the procedure the law demands

According to the expert report, the changes made cannot be classified as an extension, an addition or an adaptation. This was a reconstruction, and reconstruction requires a full legal procedure. In this case, no such procedure was carried out at all.

The change of use from warehouse to hospitality venue significantly increased the load on the structure and directly affected safety. In different periods steel columns and beams were installed, external stairs and a canopy were built. The steel galleries that existed in 2012 were removed in 2024, and a stage was built in their place.

The polyurethane foam that exists in no document

The interior columns were clad in plasterboard, and the loft was fitted out with glass wool, gypsum panels and polyurethane foam. That foam is precisely what burned completely in the fire.

Asked by prosecutors whether the documentation contains any record at all of polyurethane foam being installed, the expert replied that no such material is listed in any document reviewed. The material that spread the fire fastest, then, did not exist on paper.

One document, two institutions, not a single check

In the entire file, Lazarevska found only one document that resembled a design project - produced by the company „VENCI” DOOEL from Kocani, for a change of use to a cabaret. That document did not contain the phases required by law, was never submitted to the Municipality, and not one of the measures it envisaged was ever implemented.

Despite that, the document was used in proceedings before two institutions - the State Market Inspectorate in 2012 and the Stip police directorate when issuing its consent. So a piece of paper that fails to meet the requirements passed through two state gates.

The number 472

A survey report produced on 16 March 2025 showed that the building's footprint had not changed over the years and that its floor area had consistently been around 472 square metres.

That figure is not a technical detail. The key criterion for classification as a cabaret is a floor area under 300 square metres. The venue was never below that threshold - so it could never have been a cabaret. According to the expert report, the way the space was organised and fitted out points to the characteristics of a nightclub.

After the hearing, Aleksandar Naunov, who represents the families of the victims, said the new findings further confirm years of failures and irresponsible conduct.

Every one of these findings was known, or knowable, before 16 March 2025. The footprint was in the cadastre. The change of use required a procedure. The document was incomplete and still cleared an inspectorate. The question that will decide the outcome of this trial is not what the expert report shows - it is why nobody looked earlier.